Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Braden N . McDaniel" <email@example.com>
- To: Ann Navarro <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 17:22:13 -0400
On Sun, 29 Aug 1999 16:36:38 Ann Navarro wrote:
> At 04:36 PM 8/29/99 -0400, Braden N . McDaniel wrote:
> >Definitely. Or, which HTML 4.0-conforming browsers did you have in mind?
> >Certainly HTML has succeeded, but HTML 4.0 just isn't a reality on the Web
> >yet. I don't consider that successful.
> It's not?
> How is it less a reality than HTML 3.2? Which browsers fully conform to
> that? (DTD requirements and all?)
Just about any valid HTML 3.2 document will be rendered correctly by todays browsers. There are exceptions, but you generally have to reach for them--generally the problems are with parsing seldom-used constructions, not with actual element support. HTML 3.2 wasn't a particularly successful spec either, but that never mattered since its only real purpose was to endorse the success browsers were already enjoying with the additional tags they had added. Attributing this success to HTML 3.2 is simply revisionist.
Creating an HTML 4.0 document that will be butchered by today's browsers is a snap. There are elements that remain unrecognized in the popular browsers. EMBED, which is part of no HTML spec, remains more popular on the Web than OBJECT simply because it works better. That's how it's less a reality than HTML 3.2.
Braden N. McDaniel
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:email@example.com
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org)